What wide-angle R? 19/2.8 or 21/4?

[paolo_folzani]

Dear Leica-lovers, I have a 24 elmarit R but I'm not very satisfied. Pictures are not so surprising like with other Leica lenses (infact 24/2.8 is in practice a Minolta lens!). If I change (secondhand of course), I'd prefer a wider lens as 19 or 21. Can anyone suggest me about the 21/4 or 19/2.8 (new and old version)? Thank You for Your answer. Paolo

[Robin Smith]

If you find the 24mm disappointing then I do not think you will find

the 21mm any better. The current 19mm is a very fine lens and is a lot

wider so may give more impact. Whether in reality you would notice the

difference in performance betweent the 24mm and the 19mm I don't know.

The 19mm is reputed to be excellent, but in my experience the wider

the lens the harder it is to get the best performance, so while the

19mm is an excellent super-wide, it might not in reality actually be

better optically than the less-wide 24mm. If you are very rich then

the 15mm would be nice. I know for a fact that the current 28mm is

superb and by most accounts better optically than the 24mm.

 

<p>

 

Have you considered the new 21-35mm zoom? - an intriguing lens and a

good price for a Leica R lens.

[bob haight]

Are you doing enlargements of 8 x 10 or greater. I think for standard

color prints the current 24mm is a great performer, Minolta or not.

[jay_.]

I agree that the 24/2.8-R is an unimpressive performer (not bad, but

nothing to write home about). It was no better than the 24/2.8AIS

Nikkor I had simultaneously.

 

<p>

 

I use and like the 21/4. Understand that I shoot landscapes mostly

with it and so stopping it down to f/8 or smaller. I owned the 1st-

version 19/2.8 and sold it because as I said I don't shoot wide open

and the lens is positively huge and ungainly and despite 82mm threads

it is not possible to use filters without scraping the front element

or vignetting. Despite rave reviews of the current 19mm, I won't buy

it because I can't put a UV filter on it and it's too expensive for

me to risk the front element to nature's elements.

 

<p>

 

The 21-35 might be interesting for someone else, but for me focusing

28-35mm on an R body at f/4 is tantamount to impossible except in the

brightest daylight, and to pay $1900 for it and only use 21mm vs

around $800 for a mint 21/4, seemed unsound economically.

[reto3]

I would agree with the previous suggestion that you look at the new

21-35. I bought one as soon as it was available and have shot almost

10 rolls exclusively with it. It was expensive, but the cost was

justified because of the 'large' range that it covers. If my memomy

is correct, the 19mm was a Zeiss designed or made lens. (No

complaints on that count!) The weight of the 19mm is 0,560kg, but I

cannot say what my 21-35 weighs, certainly not more. Based on

flexibility and freedom -- the zoom won the day and continues to do

so.

 

<p>

 

PS Io vado a Roma questa weekend. Per me, non è solo una città

storica ma anche una luogo pieno di occasioni fotografiche. Guarda

per un uomo con un R8 qui mangia troppo saltimbocca o bombolotti

amatriciana o baccalà o....

[albert knapp md]

Dear Paolo: I have had the newer version of the 19mm F/2.8 for

the past three years and have used it all over Europe on our

photographic vacations. The lens is excellent with both great

resolution and contrast but it takes a while to get used to it as

you must keep it perfectly horizontal. My only concern is that you

cannot put a filter in front of the front optic for protection purposes

so be careful. I suggest you rent one, use it and then buy it....

[Rob F.]

Brian Bowers in The Leica Lens Book, is very lukewarm about the 24mm

R. But he praises the 21 f/4, calling it one of his favorites, until

he replaced it with the even better 19mm. Reading between Bowers'

lines may not be enough to base a purchase on, but it does suggest

the 21 f/4 might be a step up from the 24.

[jacques_balthazar1]

Paolo,

 

<p>

 

I use the new gen 19f2.8, and highly recommend it. It is the best

ultra-wide angle lens I have ever used: no distortion, very high

contrast and resolution, very high level of flare immunity, very low

vignetting. At least on par, performance wise, with the wonderful

21mm f2.8 M asph. But much more practical.

 

<p>

 

One of its main selling points, from my point of view, is the

excellent performance at f2.8. This means you can use the

capabilities of ultrawide photography in low light, with absolutely

no quality trade off. This is a priceless bonus not only when

shooting in cramped indoors settings, but also when shooting outdoors

in the evening.

 

<p>

 

The very close minimum focusing distance of this lens, together with

the extensive DoF implied by such a focal length, allows you to go

for spectacular near/far compositions in landscape images, as well as

in dynamic indoors shots (workplaces, factories, museums,

exhibitions, etc).

 

<p>

 

Focusing is a breeze if you follow the "Ted Grant book of rules" for

wide angle focusing (see relevant thread on this site).

 

<p>

 

The construction of the latest 19mm is a clockwork wonder, typical of

most R lenses. It balances very well on a R8. And it looks nice! It

has a set of on board filters, on a turret, mainly for b/w work or

color correction.

[sheridan]

Hello Paolo.I had a 24mm Elmarit and now use the 21mm

Super Angulon instead.I prefer the perspective.Stopped down to

5.6 to 8 it gives great images.I think the older 19mm is just too

bulky.

[Robin Smith]

Reto

 

<p>

 

The 19mm is a Solms lens. The older 15mm Super-Elmar was the Zeiss

lens. Now replaced by the new 15mm ASPH.

 

<p>

 

Paolo

 

<p>

 

I really think you need to look at the zoom. It may well be the case

that the new zoom is better at 21 and 24 than the SA and the 24mm. I

think the lens is f3.5 at 21mm so should be easier to focus than the

SA at 21mm. I seriously doubt that the SA 21mm is better than the

24mm. I find the 21mm OK, but not a great performer. It needs to be

stopped down to f8 to get the corners really sharp. Of course if you

prefer the 21mm perspective then you may prefer it I suppose. As usual

of course, money and how much you want to spend will be important.

[Robin Smith]

Paolo

 

<p>

 

I have a 21mm SA for sale if you are interested. See:

 

<p>

 

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008NPn